Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: goa daman and diu mining concessions abolition and declaration as mining leases act 1987 schedule i details or mining concessions abolished and declared as mining leases on and from the appointed day Page 1 of about 39 results (0.078 seconds)

Kuldip Nayar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC3127; JT2006(8)SC1; 2006(8)SCALE257; (2006)7SCC1

..... the constitution (thirty sixth amendment) act, 1975 and various states reorganisation acts passed by the parliament from time to time, lastly by the goa, daman and diu reorganisation act, 1987 which came into effect on 30 may 1987, whereby state of goa was inserted into the fourth schedule and the figure 'increased to '233'. the figure '233' occurs in the fourth schedule as on .....

Govt. Of Nct of Delhi Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... which amends or has the effect of amending this constitution. 25 article 239a applies to the union territory of puducherry (goa, daman and diu were excluded with effect from 1987 by the goa, daman and diu part d reorganisation act, 1987). 26 article 239a is enabling. it enables parliament to enact a law for the union ..... a consequence of which both manipur and tripura were omitted from article 239a.179. likewise, with the enactment of the goa, daman and diu reorganisation act, 1987 on 30th may 1987, both goa and daman and diu were omitted from article 239a. the parliament, under the government of union territories act, 1963, created legislatures for the ..... at all as on today. there is a second category of union territories covered by article 239 a (which applied to himachal pradesh, manipur, tripura, goa, daman and diu and pondicherry now, of course, only pondicherry survives in this category, the rest having acquired statehood) which have legislatures by courtesy of parliament. the parliament .....

S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365

P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...

Suvina B. Redkar Vs. Government of Goa and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR695

..... functions as are incidental, supplemental or consequential to any of the function aforesaid or which may be prescribed.18. it is then necessary to refer to the goa, daman and diu town and country planning board rules, 1976 (for short 'the board rules') framed by the government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (2) ..... counsel for the petitioner in w.p. no. 240 of 1991 has raised before us the following contentions :(i) there has no affective consultations with the goa, daman and diu town planning board (for short the board) before amalgamating the planning areas in question under the impugned notification dated 26-6-1991, the said requirement under section ..... 1. these two writ petitions which challenge the notification of the state government dated 26th june, 1991 issued under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the goa, daman and diu town and country planning act, 1974 and its further consequential notification dated the same issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20 of the .....

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC3708; 2005(4)CTC762; JT2005(8)SC203; (2005)12SCC1

..... apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this act in the union territory of goa, daman and diu. (1a) no person shall transport or store or cause to be transported or stored any mineral otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules .....

Krishna Kumar Singh and anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1998SC2288; JT1998(4)SC58; (1998)IIIMLJ100(SC); 1998(3)SCALE482; (1998)5SCC643; [1998]3SCR206

Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted. This group of appeals arises from a judgement of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court dated 9.3.1994 in a group of writ petitions filed by the teaching and non-teaching staff of various Sanskrit Schools in the State of Bihar. These Sanskrit Schools were private schools. They were said to have been taken over by the State of Bihar under Ordinance 32 of 1989. The teachers and staff of these schools claimed that as a result, they had become Government servants. They filed before the High Court petitions for payment of salary and other emoluments on the basis that they were Government servants with effect from coming in into force of Ordinance 32 of 1989 and they continue to be so thereafter, although the last of the series of Ordinances expired by lapse of time on 30th of April, 1992.2. The High Court has held that the petitioners before it would be entitled to get their salary which they were getting prior to the promulgation of the Ordinances...

indra Sawhney Etc. Etc Vs. Union of India and Others, Etc. Etc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1993SC477; [1992]Supp2SCR454; 1992DGLS(soft)768:1992Supp(3)SCC217

..... states, such reservations are in force. reservations in favour of o.b.cs. are in force in the states of kerala, tamil nadu, karnataka, andhra pradesh, maharashtra, orissa, bihar, gujarat, goa, uttar pradesh, punjab, haryana and himachal pradesh among others. in madhya pradesh, a list of o.b.cs. was prepared on the basis of mahajan commission report but it appears ..... (report of 1977).supreme court vide wp no. 1 of 1987 which is pending status report not received from state government. even if in one or two cases (e.g., goa), the list is prepared without appointing a commission, it cannot be said to be bad on that account. the government, which drew up the list, must be presumed to be .....

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and ors.Vs. State of Kerala and anr ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1

1. I propose to divide my judgment into eight parts. Part I will deal with Introduction; Part II with interpretation of Golakhnath case; Part III with the interpretation of the original Article 368, as it existed prior to its amendment; Part IV with the validity of the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act; Part V with the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VI with the validity of Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act; Part VII with Constitution (Twenty- ninth Amendment) Act; and Part VIII with conclusions.PART I-Introduction2. All the six writ petitions involve common questions as to the validity of the Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. I may give a few facts in Writ petition No. 135 of 1970 to show how the question arises in this petition. Writ Petition No. 135 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner on March 21, 1970 under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his ...

Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1993SC2178; JT1993(1)SC474; 1992(2)SCALE703; (1993)1SCC645; [1993]1SCR594

..... of education are fulfilled. education is, therefore, an industry nothing can stand in the way of that conclusion.69. this ruling was relied on in miss sundarambai v. government of goa 1988 supl. 1 scr 6088,. it was held:thus it is seen that even though an educational institution has to be treated as an industry in view of the decision .....

S.S. Bola and Others Vs. B.D. Sardana and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1997SC3127; JT1997(6)SC637; 1997(5)SCALE90; (1997)8SCC522; [1997]Supp2SCR507

K. RAMASWAMY, J. (dissenting) 1. Application/s for impleadment allowed. 2. These appeals and transfer cases are wrapped up of complex facts interwoven with diverse principles in service jurisprudence, compounded by legislative intervention impinging upon judicial review by enacting Act 20 of 1995 to regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department Buildings and Roads Branch, Public Health Branch and Irrigation Branch respectively. The said Act 20 of 1995 (for short the Act) came into force with effect from 13-11-1995. It amended and repealed the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch), (Public Health Branch) and (Irrigation Branch) Rules, Irrigation Branch by Ordinance 6 of 1995. The latter repealed the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Buildings and Roads Branch), (Public Health Branch) Rules, 1960 and (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1961 (sic 1964) issued under proviso to...